In writing about history one needs to understand the times of the historicl fact and if there is any comparison to today done, it should be done without aggressiveness or blame. Of course you can take sides, but make this fact known. As an example: The real Christopher Columbus takes on a new persona with each generation; with some writers there is outright denial in his part in discovering America, and with others it is a general downsizing. Why can't we simply arrive at a few facts and leave it at that? Of course not all that is said about him is exactly true since the telling was done by him and writers of his time and both could have exaggerated.
Most adventurers and writers were guilty of that, especially in their time. And writers still all too often embroider on the truth. This should be carefully watched, especially by historians; they should not whet the readers' appetite for sensation at the expense of the truth. It was the writers writing about Christopher Columbus that faulted where accuracy is concerned when they based their opinions on others' writings at the time of America's discovery who had opposing opinions. Some of these writers were not friends of his. No doubt later writers wanting to get at the truth did not fully get both sides of the arguments.
In writing, or in this case, rewriting history from a present perspective is, to my way of thinking, unfair. We should not project our opinions back into time and reassess what we have learned. That creates doubt and, when writing about Columbus, confuses students of history. It would be best to follow through with the conservative view and as a sideline mention that who said what when. Then, if the writer wants to give his opinion on what he believes to be the truth, he should make it known it is his opinion. To further that, he could, and should, cite his sources for his daring pronouncements.
The most disturbing part of this question being asked, Did Christopher Columbus really discover America, is its implications. It is not so much about an isolated incident about him personally, but a writing venue that is becoming popular; it is too much of history under the gun that is disturbing. This would not be so alarming if the average student of history took into consideration writing at that time and made allowances for the likes of the Shakespeares and Sydneys and Marlows who wrote in a peculiar style and for their time. They were alerting their peers to what was going on in the world and was trying to make money writing just as writers do today. Had they known they would be taken to task six hundred or so years later, they would have been more careful with their facts.
Now, no sooner does a historian write something about an event of the past than another will write a contrary opinion. Are we so naive as to believe that every word written about the past is true? Absolutely not. But lets stop confusing our children. They have a right to learn that for the most part the founders and explorers of our country were honorable and what's wrong with allowing them to grow up ignorant of mud slinging and innuendoes involving the real event. Human beings of any age on such dangerous and treacherous journeys as Christopher Columbus and Magellan and De Soto undertook were not perfect.
Yet, now that I've had my say exactly what are others saying about Christopher Columbus? They are saying he was not so nice. In fact they are calling him a murderer. It is true that he did wage a little war with some Native Americans. However, the claim that he was a racist and a rapist, I never heard of that. He could have been. We have them around today too, but most of them sail on dangerous voyages and make such large historical splashes that overshadow their shortcomings. On one site, the writer thought that after reading the book "Lies my teacher told me" by James W. Laewen that we might want to regurgitate the facts learned in school. My answer to that is no sir, count me out. I digested Christopher Columbus by the eight grade and in the interim - between then and now - I have discerned the difference between what was taught a twelve year old girl who believed everything a teacher said, and the probable truth of the event.
His voyage was quite innocent! He did not mean to found a continent, he only wanted to help his countrymen and like a good scout, get paid for his hard work. He was in search of spice from India since England's bland food certainly was in need of some. Was it fate, or simply luck? Arguments for both of those have kept historians, philosophers, economists, theologians and those looking for controversy busy for centuries. Laying claim to none of the above I have known for many years - and I learned it from history classes sometime in the late forties- that Christopher Columbus was not the real first discoverer to America, that Leif Erickson, Amerigo Vespucci, and possibly even St. Brenden had been here much earlier.
All of that was common knowledge and it never seemed to disturb many educators. They and the students they taught seemed to know that writers, as I said earlier, embroider on the truth and that's okay as long as the basic facts are presented. That, however, was before it became fashionable to look back in anger and proclaim most of what we learned is now lies. That was before multiculturalism took the center stage. Exactly what is multiculturalism? It is a culture made up of many cultures. An example of a multicultural classroom would be to find an array of the most fabulous bunch of innocent humanity in a first grade classroom.
On the first day of school the teacher, perhaps an American whose parents came here as a refugee from Korea back in the early fifties, was amazed at the variety of innocence she now was expected to teach. Although distinctly Korean in looks, she's American to the core. She did not need to apply for citizenship papers; she was born in this country. In her classroom are: a Native American called Bright Eyes by her grandmother, a Latino who will need help with English, a German boy whose father is here as a professor at the local University, two or three Chinese students, an Australian student and many other of mixed parentage, and two or three of African - American lineage.
In other words a true multicultural classroom. Of course, she will not be concerned with Christopher Columbus and will, during the year, teach her first grade class as she was taught to do. Yet later on in school as the children grow and expand in knowledge, it would certainly be unwise to instill in these fresh young minds how horrible the founder of North and South America was. It would be best to stick with the details of the physical journey and the facts and leave the judgmental part to the Creator. Perhaps He knows best after all. How do we know, since our knowledge is infinitely less, that he on purpose steered the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria in the wrong direction. Wrong for present day distracters, but right for Him. Since I can't say that He did, or that He didn't, I am going to steer my canoe - as a fractionalized human with some Native American blood in my veins. One of my ancestors could have been on the shore meeting Christopher Columbus as he arrived - away from controversy. I understand the problems that dealing with many different cultures bring, but confusing them further is not the answer.
Therefore, when writing about history, lets give our forefathers what is due them; lets give them respect and the benefit of any doubts.